For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.

That would be fine. Again, it's the 'accept, then silently delete' that's the problem.

And in this case, it should be marked as spam, and either a) held by the ISP for some period of time, per the ToS that the user agreed to, or b) delivered to the user, marked as spam, for them to do with as they see fit.

The ONLY situation that anybody here has described that MUST NOT HAPPEN is this chain of three steps:1) Recipient's ISP SMTP server accepts a message2) Recipient's ISP SMTP server decides the message is spam3) Recipient's ISP SMTP server deletes the message with no notification to anybody

There have, in fact, been lawsuits over this sort of thing.

The ISP must either a) refuse the message at time of delivery, via SMTP reject code, or b) accept the message, and hold it for the recipient. If the recipient chooses not to then access the message, that's their lookout.

The state is deeply embedded into all economic activity already. Pick a type of business at random and go see what permissions you need to seem before you can start, and what rules you must follow while operating.

Yes, but nowhere near the level of Soviet style communism.

Nearly all education is collectivized, as is nearly all medicine now. Your insurance may not be under Obamacare yet, but every doctor and clinic you go to has warped their practice and administration to comply with Obamacare and Medicare mandates.

Good. Education was one thing the soviets were good at, and the problem with Obamacare is that it's a half-assed compromise cluster fuck. Just go full single-payer, and join the rest of the civilized world in making people not have to consciously decide if they can afford to go see a doctor or not.

The NSA knows everwhere you go and everyone you talk to. If they notice you, they can expand that to knowing what you talk about, secretly. They have dirt on everyone worth the effort. Parallel construction is an abomination against justice. Your local police are equipped and trained like soldiers.

These are problems, but have nothing to do with communist influence, per se. When the NSA can disappear you, when being sent to count trees in an Alaskan gulag is a common threat with teeth, then maybe.

People are routinely pushed out of work, even out of companies they founded, and out of polite society for saying things opposed to the party line. Someone out there tries to maintain a list, but it is hard to keep up now. Brendan Eich, Tim Hunt, James Watson, Donald Sterling. Martin O'Malley was just forced to supplicate himself publicly for failing to stick to the party script. Reporters are climbing over one another for a chance to demonize Trump for daring to utter hatefacts in public.

You know, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, aren't exactly Communist bulwarks. Again, of somebody utters 'hatefacts' and winds up doing 20 years in a labour camp of strict regime, we're communist. If the people, having heard somebody exercise their right of free speech, thanks to the free press, then decides to exercise their own right of free speech in criticizing the original speaker, however, that's kind the opposite of communism.

The idea is that because classification X didn't have certain rights for as long as classification Y did, classification X deserves additional compensation to make up for it.

The classic example is 'two people are in a 100 meter race. One is wearing running shoes, one is wearing iron balls and shackles. At the 50 meter point, you allow the second person to take off the iron balls and shackles. Are they now 'equal?'

Hmm. I see no state-run economy, no shortages of basic, or even luxury, goods or services, no five year plans, no collectivization of goods or services, no state secret police or internal security apparatus, no political officers, no mandatory party affiliation to progress past 'illiterate farm or factory worker,' and nobody calls anybody 'comrade.'

But this guy was operating his little gun drone safely and responsibly. The fact that he could have chosen not to operate it safely and responsibly doesn't, or shouldn't, suddenly make it illegal.

He didn't point a gun at anyone. If he had, he'd be breaking existing laws, and would be so charged.

So yes, there is no difference between 'he operated a firearm safely' and 'he operated a motor vehicle safely.' If in the first case, you feel justified in saying 'yes BUT,' then you must also feel that the second case is exactly the same.